The reason for this dramatic change in the fighting culture of the average Afghan soldier is not to boost the coffers of the American manufacturer of the M16 - although it undoubtedly will.

The war hospital among the worlds best Nato general warns of a more ruthless Taleban Rather, it is designed to improve the efficiency of the ANA and teach its soldiers how to preserve ammunition to ensure that, when a battle is fought, the enemy is defeated before the bullets run out.

Traditionally, the Afghan will fire his Kalashnikov from the hip as he advances, spraying the enemy in all directions on automatic mode until every bullet has been expended.

But that is not the way of the British or American soldier who uses his ammunition stocks with greater husbandry and fires to kill, rather than to deluge the enemy with a wall of bullets.

The M16 is fired automatically but in triple bursts, not a constant stream, and never from the hip but with aimed shots from the shoulder. It is against the very nature of warfare as practised by an Afghan soldier, but at Camp Tombstone the first attempts are being made to consign the AK47 to history.

Just my $.02 but making the Afghan's use the M-16A2 over the AK-47 is wrong on soooooooo many levels.

First of the M-16A2 is a precision made weapon that needs constant babying - aka CLEANING - and that ain't gonna happen. Like the article says, you can bury an AK in the sand for 100 years, dig it up, and it will fire (just like we found in the climes on Vietnam). Try that with any M-16.

Secondly, contrary to the article the M-16 was not designed to 'kill', aimed 3 round burst or not. the theory behind that little bullet was it was designed to injure, and as such take 3 bad-guys out of a battle (2 to care for the wounded). The AK's 7.62x39 is far superior for 'killing' up to 200 yards. And for longer distances neither are ideal in battle. Then there's the ammo. The 7.62x39 is prolly the most available round in the world thanks to the USSR, China, etc.

Oh, and there's a reason the M-16A2 only fires a three round burst, compared to the old 'full auto' A1 used in Vietnam. The US Military is cheap, historically cheap. After Vietnam the bean counters went to work and found it took 25,000 M-16A1 rounds per VC/NVA kill. And we can't have that it's a 'waste of money', so the A2 came out with the 3 round burst. So let them keep the AK, or if ammo cost is again rearing its ugly head, give them SKS's. There's plenty available and the ammo is the same.

As to the 'historically cheap' part - that goes back to the Civil war and US Military choice of the single shot Springfield over the Henry 'repeater' (waste of bullets and money). And that 'logic' continued through the Indian Wars. If Custer's 7th had Winchesters at the Little Big Horn - which many of the 'injuns' did, it wouldn't have been his 'last stand'. (yeah one Gatling would have done it too but that's another matter)

The M-16 just sucks, in any version. It was designed for a war that never came.

(just my $.02)

16
posted on 04/16/2008 6:49:28 AM PDT
by Condor51
(I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)

Against the Soviet Bloc, aka a Regular Army, where they would care about a fellow wounded soldier. The terrorists don't - meeting Allah is fine with them.

There's been many complaints currently by the troops about the lousy killing power of the M-16A2 & its variants (there's been Threads on these articles). There's been articles posted that the US Army is now looking into the development of a new Main Battle Rifle with more power to replace the M-16. (check banglist)

In the meantime, the M-14 with its .308 would fit the bill, especially with a modification to the 3 round burst wanted by the ammo cost bean counters. The original M-14 was unwieldy on 'full auto'.

18
posted on 04/16/2008 9:39:30 AM PDT
by Condor51
(I have guns in my nightstand because a Cop won't fit)

Try 'completely uncontrollable' and you'll be nearer the mark. However, as a semi-auto precision fire weapon the M-14 is just about perfect IMO. Full disclosure: I own an M1A which is the civie version of the M14.

There's been many complaints currently by the troops about the lousy killing power of the M-16A2 & its variants

There are literally tens of thousands of America's enemies who are no longer breathing because of the M16 and it's variants. It'll kill bad guys just fine if you put the round where it needs to go.

There's a deeper story here which, suprise suprise, the MSM droid completely missed. What we're trying to do with the ANA is to change it's 'battle doctrine' so it's soldiers actually care where the bullet thingy goes.

That's a huge change for them, and it won't come easily.

There's been articles posted that the US Army is now looking into the development of a new Main Battle Rifle with more power to replace the M-16.

True enough, but every single one of those replacements is spec'd to fire the 5.56 NATO cartridge. There's been some limited research into 6.8mm and others, but the 5.56 is going to be standard US issue for the next few decades at least.

Why don't we just equip the Iraqi and Afghani armies with the Polish Tantal Beryl rifle??? Not much retraining would be needed to field those weapons, as they are 5.56mm NATO variations of the AK-74m, and more accurate than the AK-47.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.